By Mark J. Valencia

The South China Sea: Are Pundits and Politicians Pushing the US into War?

Over
the past few years, bashing
China for its policy and actions in the South China Sea has become
quite common in the US foreign policy community. More recently, the criticism
has become ever more strident and dangerous. In some instances, it even borders
on “yellow journalism” — which in the past has prodded the US into war.

An
example of an extreme view is a piece by former US air force intelligence
officer Robert
E. McCoy in the Asia Times entitled “China’s missiles in the South China Sea mean girding for war.” In an
outburst of hyperbole, he warns that “China has flung down the gauntlet
effectively issuing a call to arms,” and tauntingly asks if the US is “so
afraid of a military confrontation that [it is] willing to concede an entire
sea to Beijing through inaction?”

Gordon
Chang, a well-known American Asia policy expert alleges that
China is “itching for a confrontation.” Chang goes on to say that China wants
more than just to provoke a confrontation — it wants to “pull the trigger.”

Other
“experts” in Washington DC have trumpeted the China “threat.” For example, the
AMTI/CSIS released a report, “China’s big three
near completion,” detailing China’s latest construction on the
features it occupies in the South China Sea. In what has become a predictable
pattern, some US and foreign media used the information to bolster what seems
to have become their campaigns to convince the Trump administration that China
presents an imminent
threat to US interests there — including freedom of navigation. It
also continues to misleadingly conflate China’s activities in the Paracels with
its activities in the Spratlys.

Accompanying
these cries that “the sky is falling” has been a spate of proposals for
aggressive US military action challenging China’s claims and actions in that
Sea. One example is an article in The
National Interest by James
Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara entitled “Standing up to China is not
extremism — It’s smart foreign policy.” According to Holmes and Yoshihara, the
new administration “must relearn the art of deterrence, and to deter Chinese
aggression the administration must accept that hazards come with the territory.”
For them, such deterrence “involves fielding military power sufficient to make
good on the threat, whether the requisite capabilities be nuclear or
conventional.” In a posting in The Diplomat,
US Navy Captain Tuan
N. Pham also urges the US not to “back down” in the South China Sea.

In
a recent piece in War on the Rocks, Ryan
Martinson and Andrew Erickson call for the US to “re-orient” its sea
power to challenge China in the South and East China Seas. Specifically, they
propose that the US place “forces on the front lines where they can play a more
direct role helping other states counter China’s seaward expansion.”

Even
the Washington Post has jumped on the
bandwagon. A May
23, 2018 editorial criticizes the landing of nuclear-capable bombers
“on an island in the South China Sea” and claims “it was another significant
step in Beijing’s militarization of disputed territories in the region.” That
island was Woody Island in the Paracels — an island group far to the northwest
of the Spratlys, much closer to China and occupied solely by China since 1974. They
are a completely different group from the Spratlys and have a quite different
legal and strategic character. The editorial further demonstrates ignorance of
the legal situation by stating that an “international tribunal rejected its
sweeping claim to them [the Paracel and Spratly islands]. This is simply not
so. The tribunal did not address the question of sovereignty over the features
[except indirectly for a few]. The editorial then repeats the AMTI/CSIS
prediction that Chinese war planes “would soon be spotted on the long runways
constructed in the Spratlys,” and adds that “the bombers could cover much of
the South China Sea—through which up to one third of global trade passes.” The
editorial concludes by criticizing the US for not stopping China’s advance and
implicitly urges the US to take military action against China.

These
examples offer a glimpse into the wave of anti-China bias washing across the US
foreign policy community. The scaremongers are finding resonance with some
members of Congress and the Trump administration. On May 3, the White
House announced that there would be “near-term and long-term
consequences” for China’s “militarization” of the South China Sea. Sure enough,
a flurry of anti-China actions and statements followed. On May 23, the
Pentagon announced that it has withdrawn an invitation to China to
participate in the 2018 Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) — the world’s
largest multinational military exercise. It said: “China’s behavior [in the
South China Sea] is inconsistent with the principles and purposes of the RIMPAC
exercise.” It followed this public slight four days later with a provocative
two-ship Freedom
of Navigation Operation (FONOP) within 12 nautical miles of the
Paracels, including Woody Island, thus “violating” China’s regime of required
prior permission for warships to enter its territorial waters. The US warships
were reportedly maneuvering in China’s territorial sea and were thus not in
innocent passage.

If
so, this would imply that the US does not recognize the features as “legal
islands.” Woody
Island is China’s largest military outpost in the South China Sea
and where it had recently landed an H-6K strategic bomber — and is thus
presumably particularly sensitive. The US ships were confronted by Chinese
warships that according
to the US behaved in an “unprofessional manner.” On May 29, US
Defense Secretary James
Mattis said the US would continue to confront China’s “militarization”
of its occupied islands. On June 1, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, he declared that “despite China’s claims to the contrary, the
placement of these weapon systems is tied directly to military use for the
purposes of intimidation and coercion.” On May 30, retiring PACOM Commander
Admiral Harry
Harris said “China remains our biggest long-term challenge. Without
focused involvement and engagement by the United States and our allies and
partners China will realize its dream of hegemony in Asia.”

China
played right into the US public relations offensive when its
Air Force said that the landing of the strategic bomber at Woody
island was “training … to improve our ability to ‘reach all territory, conduct
strikes at any time and strike in all directions’” as well as preparation for “the
battle for the South China Sea”. These implied threats are in response to what
it views as the threats implied by US actions there. These misperceptions may
be on the verge of spiraling out of control.

If
the US steps-up its naval confrontation of China, it risks further straining
frayed relations, destabilizing the “new normal,” and inviting China’s
political, economic and military response while garnering little or no support
from Southeast Asian nations that it claims to be defending.

Meanwhile,
on May 24, the US Congressional
Research Service released a report criticizing China’s policy and
actions in the South China sea. And on May 25, three
US senators wrote a letter to Mattis praising the Pentagon’s
retraction of the RIMPAC invitation to China and calling for more action to
respond to China’s deployment of advanced weapons systems to three features
that it occupies in the Spratlys.

US
“experts” and empathetic politicians and officials have verbally thrown
everything at China including the proverbial “kitchen sink.” They have accused
China of being assertive and aggressive; violating the 2002 ASEAN-China
Declaration on Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea (DOC); not
conforming to international rules and norms; militarizing the features;
generating instability; and threatening freedom of navigation. Let’s examine
these allegations regarding China’s behavior that are the basis for this US response.

“Assertiveness and
aggressiveness”

China’s
policy and actions in protecting what it sees as its sovereignty and resources
against rival claimants have indeed been both assertive and aggressive. But so
has been those actions of Vietnam as well as US naval activity targeting China.
Overall China has demonstrated relative restraint vis-à-vis provocative,
assertive and aggressive US FONOPs and ISR probes.

“Violating the
DOC”

In
other claimants’ eyes, China has indeed violated the DOC. But other claimants —
like Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam — have also violated its
self-restraint provision by continuing their reclamation and construction
activities after the 2002 agreement. More significant to China, the Philippines
— by filing its complaint against China under UNCLOS — violated what China
considers the most important DOC
provision of all — the commitment “to resolve their territorial and
jurisdictional disputes through friendly consultations and negotiations by
sovereign states directly concerned.”

“Not conforming to
international rules and norms”

China
and the US do not agree on what many of these rules and norms are or should be.
The US basically wants to strengthen the existing status quo in which it is the
dominant actor and patron. China believes it is being constrained by the
existing US-led international world order that favors a system developed and
sustained by the West and which contributed to its past colonization and
humiliation. China wants respect for its enhanced status and its “core
interests” and wants to bend the system to its benefit just as the US did
during its rise, and still does.

“Militarization”

“Militarization” means different things to
China and the US. To China, its emplacement of “defensive” weapons does not
constitute “militarization.” In China’s view, the US has clearly “militarized”
and continues to “militarize” the region with its forward deployed troops,
assets, and patrols, bolstered by the “rebalance” of its defense forces. As
China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua
Chunying said: “The United States military presence in the South
China sea is greater than that of China and other countries that surround the
seas combined”. Both China and the US are “militarizing” the South China Sea.

“Violating freedom
of navigation”

The
US maintains its FONOPs in the South China Sea are intended to preserve and
protect freedom of commercial navigation for itself and others that is
threatened by China’s claims and actions. But China has not threatened
commercial freedom of navigation and is unlikely to do so in peacetime. The
problem is that the US deftly conflated freedom of commercial navigation with a
military priority — freedom of navigation for its ISR vessels and aircraft. In
so doing, it makes frequent reference to UNCLOS which it has not ratified and
thus has little credibility interpreting it to its own benefit. China does
object by word and deed to what it perceives as US abuse of “freedom of
navigation” and its thinly veiled threat to use force to defend its
interpretation. As Australian analyst Sam
Bateman says: “some dialogue between these powers to reach a common
understanding of issues of disagreement would be an important regional
confidence-building measure.”

Some
argue that stepping up the US
naval confrontation of China would “portray America as a protector
of the vulnerable, a country true to its commitments, and a guarantor of the
international–rules based order” But it is, or even more likely, to be viewed
as destabilizing outside interference in regional affairs, acting in its own
self-interest, and attempting to preserve its role as regional hegemon.

The
US is overreacting and that is likely to be counterproductive. If the US
steps-up its naval confrontation of China, it risks further straining frayed
relations, destabilizing the “new normal,” and inviting China’s political, economic and military response while garnering
little or no support from Southeast Asian nations that it claims to be
defending. China may well deny future US Navy port visits, enhance its military
assets on the features it occupies, and increase People’s Liberation Army Navy
and Air Force close in “observation” of future FONOPs and ISR probes.

Clearly
some analysts and politicians are trying to goad the US into military action
which could lead to war over tiny indefensible features and resources in the
South China Sea even though there is no threat to a US core interest. It is the
job of the US defense and intelligence community to paint and plan for the
worst-case scenario. But objectivity, fairness and balance are the supposed
ethics of independent analysts. That is increasingly not the case regarding
analysis of relations between China and the US in the South China Sea.